Catalogue Search | MBRL
Search Results Heading
Explore the vast range of titles available.
MBRLSearchResults
-
DisciplineDiscipline
-
Is Peer ReviewedIs Peer Reviewed
-
Reading LevelReading Level
-
Content TypeContent Type
-
YearFrom:-To:
-
More FiltersMore FiltersItem TypeIs Full-Text AvailableSubjectPublisherSourceDonorLanguagePlace of PublicationContributorsLocation
Done
Filters
Reset
99
result(s) for
"Wicks, Andrew C"
Sort by:
Public trust in business
\"Public trust in business is one of the most important but least understood issues for business leaders, public officials, employees, NGOs and other key stakeholders. This book provides much-needed thinking on the topic. Drawing on the expertise of an international array of experts from academic disciplines including business, sociology, political science and philosophy, it explores long-term strategies for building and maintaining public trust in business. The authors look to new ways of moving forward by carefully blending the latest academic research with conclusions for future research and practice. They address core drivers of public trust, how to manage it effectively, the consequences of low public trust, and how best to trust challenges and restore trust when it has been lost. This is a must-read for business practitioners, policy makers and students taking courses in corporate social responsibility or business ethics\"-- Provided by publisher.
Stakeholder Theory, Value, and Firm Performance
by
Harrison, Jeffrey S.
,
Wicks, Andrew C.
in
Academic achievement
,
Academic staff
,
Business ethics
2013
This paper argues that the notion of value has been overly simplified and narrowed to focus on economic returns. Stakeholder theory provides an appropriate lens for considering a more complex perspective of the value that stakeholders seek as well as new ways to measure it. We develop a four-factor perspective for defining value that includes, but extends beyond, the economic value stakeholders seek. To highlight its distinctiveness, we compare this perspective to three other popular performance perspectives. Recommendations are made regarding performance measurement for both academic researchers and practitioners. The stakeholder perspective on value offered in this paper draws attention to those factors that are most closely associated with building more value for stakeholders, and in so doing, allows academics to better measure it and enhances managerial ability to create it.
Journal Article
Stakeholder Theory and \The Corporate Objective Revisited\
by
Freeman, R. Edward
,
Parmar, Bidhan
,
Wicks, Andrew C
in
Business
,
Business ethics
,
Business structures
2004
Stakeholder theory begins with the assumption that values are necessarily and explicitly a part of doing business. It asks managers to articulate the shared sense of the value they create, and what brings its core stakeholders together. It also pushes managers to be clear about how they want to do business, specifically what kinds of relationships they want and need to create with their stakeholders to deliver on their purpose. This paper offers a response to Sundaram and Inkpen's article \"The Corporate Objective Revisited\" by clarifying misconceptions about stakeholder theory and concluding that truth and freedom are best served by seeing business and ethics as connected.
Journal Article
Harmful Stakeholder Strategies
2021
Stakeholder theory focuses on how more value is created if stakeholder relationships are governed by ethical principles such as integrity, respect, fairness, generosity and inclusiveness. However, it has not adequately addressed strategies that stakeholders perceive as harmful to their interests and how this perception can even lead some stakeholders to view the firm’s strategies as unethical. To fill the void, this paper directly addresses strategies that stakeholders perceive as harmful to their interests, or what we refer to as harmful stakeholder strategies. Specifically, it identifies factors associated with stakeholder perceptions of harm that are likely to cause them to consider a strategy unethical, examines the negative implications for firms that pursue such strategies in terms of likely stakeholder responses and damage to stakeholder relationships, and provides theory to help explain how firms are likely to respond to stakeholder claims that a strategy is unethical, based on factors such as the strategic importance of the claim to the firm, how long the strategy has been in use, the costs of remediation, the risk of stakeholder mobilization or new regulation, and whether firms can reasonably rationalize their actions. Assessing harm allows a firm to make a more accurate estimate of the costs of a strategy and can assist managers in allocating resources intended to reduce or remediate harm.
Journal Article
Can Multi-Stakeholder Initiatives Improve Global Supply Chains? Improving Deliberative Capacity with a Stakeholder Orientation
by
Brown, Jill A.
,
Soundararajan, Vivek
,
Wicks, Andrew C.
in
Civil society
,
Coercion
,
Collaboration
2019
Global multi-stakeholder initiatives (MSIs) are important instruments that have the potential to improve the social and environmental sustainability of global supply chains. However, they often fail to comprehensively address the needs and interests of various supply-chain participants. While voluntary in nature, MSIs have most often been implemented through coercive approaches, resulting in friction among their participants and in systemic problems with decoupling. Additionally, in those cases in which deliberation was constrained between and amongst participants, collaborative approaches have often failed to materialize. Our framework focuses on two key aspects of these breakdowns: assumptions about the orientation of MSI participants, and the deliberation processes that participants use to engage with each other to create these initiatives and sustain them over time. Drawing from stakeholder and deliberation theories, we revisit the concept of MSIs and show how their deliberative capacity may be enhanced in order to encourage participants to collaborate voluntarily.
Journal Article
Managing for Stakeholders
by
Jeffrey S. Harrison
,
R. Edward Freeman
,
Andrew C. Wicks
in
BUSINESS & ECONOMICS
,
Business ethics
,
Corporate governance
2007,2008
Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success,the culmination of twenty years of research, interviews, and observations in the workplace, makes a major new contribution to management thinking and practice. Current ways of thinking about business and stakeholder management usually ask the Value Allocation Question: How should we distribute the burdens and benefits of corporate activities among stakeholders?Managing for Stakeholders,however, helps leaders develop a mindset that instead asks the Value Creation Question: How can we create as much value as possible for all of our stakeholders?
Business is about how customers, suppliers, employees, financiers (stockholders, bondholders, banks, etc.), communities, the media, and managers interact and create value. World-renowned management scholar R. Edward Freeman and his coauthors outline ten concrete principles and seven practical techniques for managing stakeholder relationships in order to ensure a firm's survival, reputation, and success.Managing for Stakeholdersis a revolutionary book that will change not only how managers do business but also how they recognize and evaluate business opportunities that would otherwise be invisible.
How to Assess Multiple-Value Accounting Narratives from a Value Pluralist Perspective? Some Metaethical Criteria
by
van der Linden, Bastiaan
,
Freeman, R. Edward
,
Wicks, Andrew C
in
Accounting
,
Annual reports
,
Companies
2024
Nowadays businesses are often expected to create not just financial, but multiple kinds of value—and they report on this using numbers and narratives. Multiple-value accounting narratives, such as those required by the Integrated Reporting framework, are often met with suspicion: accounting scholars have argued that inconsistencies between narratives and performances show that narratives are used for impression management rather than to accurately report the (ir)responsible behavior of companies. This paper proposes to assess narratives beyond inconsistencies with reported performances. Starting from the idea that performances are delivered in response to the kinds of value in the situation of the company, we argue that narratives and performances should be analyzed together as interrelated elements and considered in relation to the kinds of value in the situation. The paper transforms the common consequentialist view on which value should be “increased,” into the value pluralist view that something being of value can require many different performances such as for example respecting, maximizing, admiring, maintaining, using, and bringing it about. From this perspective, multiple-value accounting narratives logically precede the reporting of performances and should identify the kinds of value in the situation to which the company ought to respond, which performances are required by these kinds of value, and which indicators and targets should be used to report on these performances. A brief analysis of the annual report of Unilever illustrates how such metaethical criteria can help assess and develop multiple-value accounting narratives.
Journal Article
People and Profits: The Impact of Corporate Objectives on Employees' Need Satisfaction at Work
by
Parmar, Bidhan L.
,
Keevil, Adrian
,
Wicks, Andrew C.
in
Business and Management
,
Business Ethics
,
Compensation
2019
For decades, scholars have debated the corporate objective. Scholars have either advocated a corporate objective focused on generating value for shareholders or creating value for multiple groups of stakeholders. Although it has been established that the corporate objective can shape many aspects of the corporation—including culture, compensation, and decision making—to date, scholars have not yet explored its psychological impact; particularly, how the corporate objective might influence employee well-being. In this article, we explore how two views of the corporate objective affect employee self-determination, a key component of overall psychological need satisfaction and well-being. We hypothesize that a corporate objective based on creating value for multiple stakeholders will increase employee psychological need satisfaction as compared to one focused on creating value for only shareholders. Across four experimental studies and one field survey, we find consistent support for our hypotheses and test three facets of a stakeholder-focused corporate objective. Theoretical implications and future research directions are discussed.
Journal Article
Spheres of Influence: A Walzerian Approach to Business Ethics
by
Wicks, Andrew C.
,
Werhane, Patricia H.
,
Elms, Heather
in
Business
,
Business and Management
,
Business Ethics
2021
Michael Walzer is one of the most distinguished political philosophers and social critics of this century. His ideas have had great import and influence in political philosophy and political discussion, yet very few of his ideas have been incorporated explicitly into the business ethics literature. We argue that Walzer's work provides an important conceptual canvas for business ethics scholars that has not been adequately explored. Scholars in business ethics often borrow from political theory and philosophy to generate new insights and develop new substantive contributions. Many valuable theoretical resources are already used extensively—particularly Aristotle, Kant, Marx and a variety of utilitarian philosophers. Walzer offers another set of resources to bring to the conversation of what business ethics is and how business ethicists add value. This paper provides an opportunity to delve further into Walzer's writings, particularly themes that are tied to business ethics, and to illustrate how his ideas can be extended to reshape our understanding of the field and develop new perspectives on ethical issues in commerce.
Journal Article
What Stakeholder Theory is Not
by
Freeman, R. Edward
,
Phillips, Robert
,
Wicks, Andrew C.
in
Business ethics
,
Business studies
,
Corporate responsibility
2003
The term stakeholder is a powerful one. This is due, to a significant degree, to its conceptual breadth. The term means different things to different people and hence evokes praise or scorn from a wide variety of scholars and practitioners. Such breadth of interpretation, though one of stakeholder theory's greatest strengths, is also one of its most prominent theoretical liabilities. The goal of the current paper is like that of a controlled burn that clears away some of the underbrush of misinterpretation in the hope of denying easy fuel to the critical conflagration that would raze the theory. We aim to narrow its technical meaning for greater facility of use in management and organizational studies. By elaborating a number of common misinterpretations -critical and friendly - of the theory, we hope to render a stronger and more convincing theory as a starting place for future research.
Journal Article